Hi Stuart,
--On 25. august 2005 10:18 -0700 Stuart Cheshire
<cheshire(_at_)apple(_dot_)com> wrote:
It would go a long way to ease my concerns if the LLMNR specification
stated clearly in its introduction that it's NOT intended to compete with
mDNS, because LLMNR doesn't have any of the functionality that mDNS
provides to enable network browsing and service discovery.
It is not typical for us to make statements in our standards
regarding what proprietary mechanisms our standards are or are not
intended to compete with, nor do we typically include statements that
compare the features of our standards to proprietary protocols.
We do sometimes include statements about the applicability of our
standards to specific environments, but I don't think that is quite
what you are suggesting here.
I understand that you and some others would have preferred it if we
had standardized the Apple protocol. I wasn't involved at the time,
but I understand that the WG did not choose to purse the Apple mDNS
proposal and intentionally selected the LLMNR proposal, with the
understanding that the standard they produced would not be compatible
with the existing Apple mDNS technology. I wish that I had enough
insight into the decision-making process to know why that was
decided, but I do not. At this point, it seems too late to revisit
this decision which was made several years ago.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf